NYT Reports Democratic Operatives Helped Recruit Second 'Dan Sullivan' for Alaska Senate Ballot

The New York Times reported this week that people tied to Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola and Democratic Party officials helped recruit a second candidate named Dan Sullivan to run against Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, according to text messages cited in the report. Both the Peltola campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) deny it. Dan J. Sullivan, who has said little about his positions, reached the four-candidate general election after winning 2.5% of the primary vote. The report came as nearly 1 in 10 registered Alaska voters, roughly 58,000 people, had already voted. The U.S. Department of Justice, in a suit filed at President Donald Trump's behest, seeks to block certification if the senator narrowly loses, arguing the names could confuse voters. Alaska has asked the court to dismiss the suit, saying the ballot labels Sullivan as the "Registered Republican" incumbent and there is no evidence of problems. DOJ now supports DSCC intervention to obtain discovery about a possible conspiracy.

Right-leaning outlets lead with the alleged scheme and its timing. Fox News stresses the roughly 58,000 early votes, Dan J. Sullivan's blank issue positions and a Trump-endorsed gubernatorial candidate, Bernadette Wilson, blaming ranked choice voting. Breitbart carries Sen. Cory Booker's CNN remarks and frames the story through his dismissal of it as "much ado about nothing," while including the question of whether the DSCC should open a review. Left-leaning outlets treat the episode more skeptically. HuffPost argues the sample ballot makes the two candidates easy to tell apart and calls the controversy a non-issue, citing Alaska's court filing. The New York Times headline instead says Democrats manipulated the ballot. Both sides agree on the underlying report and the denials; they differ on whether the allegation or the ballot's clarity matters more. Reason, an alternative outlet, adds a separate legal angle, quoting Rick Hasen that the report, if true, is a bombshell but does not affect the DOJ suit.